With instrument flying it is absolutely necessary to only believe what your eyes on a scan of gauges tells you. You ignore looking outside the windshield or windows, you ignore sounds, pretty much, and you ignore your bodily feelings. If gauges don't jive with each other, you determine which one or several are faulty. Partial panel with recovery from unusual attitudes is done, sometimes with just the compass and altimeter. A compass will swing north in acceleration and south in deceleration. It will quickly swing whatever the latitude is going east and west, in the direction of the turn, or turning from north, the opposite direction, then gradually come to reality in a slow turn. You never think a simple compass will fail you, but I was IFR at night and lost both my electrical turn and bank, and my compass stuck in place! The directional gyro precession on the old aircraft was of concern, and had to be adjusted to what I knew the wind to be and tracking true on a VOR radial. Then you have garbage info coming in. Like this from our resident spammer's blog;

THE TEN NATIVE AMERICAN COMMANDMENTS

* Remain close to the Great Spirit.* Treat the Earth and all that dwell thereon with respect.* Dedicate a share of your efforts to the greater good.* Give assistance and kindness wherever needed.* Do what you know to be right.* Be truthful and honest at all times.* Look after the well-being of mind and body.* Take full responsibility for your actions.* Show great respect for your fellow beings.* Work together for the benefit of all mankind.I am afraid that history tells us different. The Apaches took advantage of those needing assistance if they were not Apache, and often tortured them to death. The Sioux only worked together with their own tribes and a few allies for their own greater good. The same with the Apaches. Not all treated the Earth with respect, some chased numerous buffalo over cliffs killing way more than needed. Most tribes only got along with closely related tribes or changing allies, and made war or hated the rest. One of the most hated tribes was the Aztecs. There wasn't a common "kumbaya" among tribes, but mostly the opposite. Some had fun being dishonest and still do. So my eyes read the above so-called Native American Commandments and realize I am seeing falsehood.The heart wants to believe it, just as it wants to believe moslem taqqiya falsehoods. The eyes see the towers and suicide bombers, and general silence of the rest. The eyes can tell trickery a little better, except when illusions are involved, then it is best to know there is an illusion going on. Like circus mirrors, magic acts, or a deceptive enemy.Sometimes you have to trust gut instinct over your eyes and ears. In flying Dustoff, the enemy tried to draw us in with phony radio calls, or popping smoke. The "friendlies" not knowing the color of smoke in English or giving wrong coordinates didn't help. They often lied about ground security or actual number of and type of wounded."You can't believe everything you see and hear, now can you?" Jimi Hendrix, "EXP"

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

The distinction of the sound bahh to fahh was quite apparent to me. Mind you when I close my eyes it becomes very ambiguous Then again the moths perception is something left to be desired. The nearest thing to flapping my wings at my normal gobblydegook.

Then you have garbage info coming in. Like this from our resident spammer's blog;

THE TEN NATIVE AMERICAN COMMANDMENTS

* Remain close to the Great Spirit.* Treat the Earth and all that dwell thereon with respect.* Dedicate a share of your efforts to the greater good.* Give assistance and kindness wherever needed.* Do what you know to be right.* Be truthful and honest at all times.* Look after the well-being of mind and body.* Take full responsibility for your actions.* Show great respect for your fellow beings.* Work together for the benefit of all mankind.

I am afraid that history tells us different. The Apaches took advantage of those needing assistance if they were not Apache, and often tortured them to death. The Sioux only worked together with their own tribes and a few allies for their own greater good. The same with the Apaches. Not all treated the Earth with respect, some chased numerous buffalo over cliffs killing way more than needed. Most tribes only got along with closely related tribes or changing allies, and made war or hated the rest. One of the most hated tribes was the Aztecs. There wasn't a common "kumbaya" among tribes, but mostly the opposite. Some had fun being dishonest and still do. So my eyes read the above so-called Native American Commandments and realize I am seeing falsehood.The heart wants to believe it, just as it wants to believe moslem taqqiya falsehoods. The eyes see the towers and suicide bombers, and general silence of the rest. The eyes can tell trickery a little better, except when illusions are involved, then it is best to know there is an illusion going on.

The heart also wants to believe the "Ten Commandments". Yet, like the Native American Commandments and like the Taqqiya, it is not so much a matter of belief .... as it is dogma. In any religion, it is about belief. Whether it is Saint Peter meeting you at the gate or about 40 virgins in some idealized after life. All religions seem to evade the reality of what IS in favor of some after-life, this life is not very important at all if and when some gratification comes to you in heaven or in an attempt to be better in some reincarnated after life, or in some Islamist utopia. Where such beliefs abide, what is the importance of this life? And yet, without any belief structures of any kind, whether religious or nationalistic, we are left with what is. And what we have is a house burning down. We are in that house burning. While this house that we live in is burning, we are debating the merits of this religion or that, this country or that. Both religion and nationalism are delusional because both are built on belief. The reality is that the house is ACTUALLY burning down.

I know that you will want to talk about over population, but the very real crisis of overpopulation was created by belief in the first place. For instance, there is in nature male and female. It is so in all life forms (except some fish which are asexual). Just a simple fact ..... there is male and female. But then religion/culture steps in and designates the human female to reproduce according to religion and to culture. She must marry and she must procreate and in doing so, in following her prescribed religious and cultural role, what belief is she demanded to follow? Should she hide it or flaunt it? Religion is a tradiional kind of concept ..... and religion has it that women should behave in a particular way .... there we have over population, and it resides in belief. Without religion, she would NEVER be compelled to have so many children!.She would very seldom opt for having so many.

Religion tends to be idealistic. Mohammed or God or Buddha all gave prescriptions for how to live one's life, but these were never beliefs. Rather, they were guidelines. Somehow, over the centuries, people have created dogma and churches/temples around this wisdom, and then we have separated ourselves out from others who have some other belief. And yet the beliefs are all pointing at the same thing. We are One. There is really no division between us. While we have different beliefs .... they are only beliefs ..... and beliefs are like paper tigers.

The Native Ten Commandments or the Christian Ten Commandments .... or the Taqquiya ..... it really doesn't matter ... nor does so called nationality as all of these are simply belief structures. Either you live that wisdom or you hold a belief about it.

There is no afterlife. This is it! We ae here now. And in this infinite space of NOW, there is no need for belief. Are you breathing? If you are breathing, then you know that. What else can you possibly know?

How can you be sure there is no after life? That is your belief. I agree all divisions of religion and sub divisions of those and so forth all have the same goal and yet in reality cause conflict and hostility between themselves , a paradox. The ten commandments I believe if adhered to will create a better society, A society of people with morals, the knowing from right from wrong, boundaries that will prevent one from straying.Divorce has been made too easy, you could argue that it has made a better life for people unhappy in their situation but it has also made a large number of people from trying harder. Relationships are a work in progress and continue to be till the end.The one thing I found about religion is its aberration when it comes to women. They have been supressed ordered by faith like you say to breed more. That is what religion wants. To fill the world with its own kind and subdue those with alternative beliefs that leads to the same goal. Salvation of the soul. You could say athiests have accepted their mortality whereas religious people of mainstream and those zealots that will die and cause mahem for the 'infidels' cannot accept their mind will terminate upon death of their body.

The media in all its grotesque forms have swayed miles away from the ten commandments and as a result society is in meltdown. Kids are being encouraged by magazines to quit childhood and grow into something they are not; adults without the maturity that is needed. In my town there are so many women with kids to so many fathers that interbreeding will be happening on a large scale.

I'm totally against abortion except in cases of rape or severe disability but this foetal genocide makes me despair, 24 weeks a disgrace.

Even music and lyrics in gangster rap is deranging and warping the kids minds.

Margaret Thatcher said there was no such thing as society. When you have had a leader who says such a thing what hope is there for the layman.

The human psyche is being bombarded on a daily basis with new rules and laws that inhibit freedom of movement and free speech and the ability to defend oneself that it is quite obvious to me we are being controlled by fascist psycopaths. 5 a day don't make me laugh. Fructose is now supposed to be harmful. People are absorbing all these conflicting stories and they are getting quite confused.

Don't let the human mind address itself and it will never be a threat to the few that is in power.Mothy.

We live in a world where the majority of people don't want wars but the minds are being fed with such absolute rubbish that they fall to their knees and thank the governments which are run by money madmen for making their lives safer.

How can you be sure there is no after life? That is your belief. I agree all divisions of religion and sub divisions of those and so forth all have the same goal and yet in reality cause conflict and hostility between themselves , a paradox.

The question of whether there is or is not an afterlife is moot when one considers life itself. You must at least admit Mothy, that the idea of an "afterlife" is a concept while life is real. It is here and now. Take a deep breath and have a look around. You are here. This is life itself and you are life. You are not separate from life. Life is "doing" you! You could say that you are living life or that life is living you. We have a long history of belief in an afterlife. The Egyptians knew all about it and people did well before them. There is a tradition in the concept of afterlife, but life itself is a living, dynamic presence ..... and that, in itself, is sacred. No ideology can ever grasp that. The idea of an afterlife .... the terrrain, the means of attainment, has morphed considerably since the ancient Egyptians, but it is still and always has been just an idea. Life is not an idea, the afterife is.

You wonder how i can be sure there is no afterlife and you say it is my belief, but it is actually an absence of belief. I have no need of certainty or uncertainty because the question dissolves into thin air. One needs to ask the right question. What i know is life.

Quote:

The ten commandments I believe if adhered to will create a better society, A society of people with morals, the knowing from right from wrong, boundaries that will prevent one from straying.

Do we really need so called holy books in order to know that my neighbor IS myself and I should therefore treat my neighbor AS myself? If I know this, not intellectually or merely as a good idea, but as an actuality, then it is so and there is no need of of a "higher power" to direct me, for I am, and you are, that higher power. The Ten Commandements have not prevented priests from raping children or from creating other kinds of mischeif in the world. The Commandments are nice guidelines but the ultinmate authority rests in each individual, you and me, inspite of them.

Quote:

Divorce has been made too easy, you could argue that it has made a better life for people unhappy in their situation but it has also made a large number of people from trying harder. Relationships are a work in progress and continue to be till the end.

Marriage has been made too easy in that it is a prescribed "moral" route and a tradition and a prescribed role for too many people, especially women. Divorce wouldn't be if marriage wasn't. I'm not against marriage, but it is just a tradition. People need to be free from both religious and societal prescriptions of how they should and must conduct their relationships. One must be free to both enter and exit. There's nothing wrong with exiting just as there's nothing wrong with entering. One doesn't need religion to figure out how to live peacefully with one's neighbours, friends, and family. We can do this without religion. We DO this without religion. Inspite of religion.

Quote:

The one thing I found about religion is its aberration when it comes to women. They have been supressed ordered by faith like you say to breed more. That is what religion wants. To fill the world with its own kind and subdue those with alternative beliefs that leads to the same goal. Salvation of the soul. You could say athiests have accepted their mortality whereas religious people of mainstream and those zealots that will die and cause mahem for the 'infidels' cannot accept their mind will terminate upon death of their body.

Well, religion seems to want to control women for sure. It wants to control both men and women, but especially women. Women are much more vulnerable to control and oppression because of biology. An easier target! it is true that mortality is inevitable and that death does actually terminate the body which of course includes the mind/brain. The brain is just an organ akin to the spleen, liver, kidneys, pancreas, etc. When the body dies, so does the brain and the brain is the storehouse of memories, experiences, .... everything. It all goes upon death. Your entire "story" of who you are, all your memories, epiphanies, beliefs, loves, opinions, ..... everything dies with your body and brain. So the question is, who, in fact, are you? Okay .... so here comes the idea of the soul. But even that idea is just an idea, stored in the brain. Even the idea of soul is a mental construct. And when the body goes so does all of its constructs! For some this may seem terrible, but it is not. If we can just get to this realization, there is the possibility for what is really sacred. And religion present and past, leads AWAY from the sacred; not towards it.

Quote:

The media in all its grotesque forms have swayed miles away from the ten commandments and as a result society is in meltdown. Kids are being encouraged by magazines to quit childhood and grow into something they are not; adults without the maturity that is needed. In my town there are so many women with kids to so many fathers that interbreeding will be happening on a large scale.

It's not just the media. The media is .... what? .... who? The media is made up of individuals spinning stories that are attractive enough for consumers to purchase so that the individuals working within the "media" can put bread on their tables to feed and educate their own children. We are all caught up in this mess. Children are encouraged to be consumers because we have created and co-created economies based on consumerism .... of fashion, cosmetics, 32 ounce steaks, and "ideas" and "ideals". In a way religion is not too much different. Both are based on 'ideals".

Quote:

I'm totally against abortion except in cases of rape or severe disability but this foetal genocide makes me despair, 24 weeks a disgrace.

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond to this. In some ways i agree with you, yet in political jargon, I am "pro-choice". ( I think it is 12 weeks in North america, but I'm not sure). I must leave this pont there.

Quote:

Even music and lyrics in gangster rap is deranging and warping the kids minds.

Yeah, pretty weird. But this is where education comes in. What we have now are institutions which prepare children for the work force. This is how schools came into being in the first place. Their inception was with the industrial revolution. Adults were taken from their farms to work in factories. What to do with the children? They were "educated" in factory model institutions so that they might be ready to hit the factory at age 10 or so. This is why alternative models of education have come about. Are you in London? Google Brockwood Park for an example of alternatives. I might visit Brockwood soon. I'm an educator by means of profession. The predominant model of education in North America and Europe (Asia is a different and much worse story), is mostly a preparation for the work force and just a slight evolution from the factory model. The violence and sexism in rap is addressed is these alternative schools, while preparation for the work force takes precedence over a more wholistic view that these altenate models address.

Quote:

Margaret Thatcher said there was no such thing as society. When you have had a leader who says such a thing what hope is there for the layman.

I don't know what she meant by that but i do know that society is not separate from me and you and us. We ARE society. Society doesn't exist out there somewhere. We are it.

The human psyche is being bombarded on a daily basis with new rules and laws that inhibit freedom of movement and free speech and the ability to defend oneself that it is quite obvious to me we are being controlled by fascist psycopaths. 5 a day don't make me laugh. Fructose is now supposed to be harmful. People are absorbing all these conflicting stories and they are getting quite confused.

Quote:

Don't let the human mind address itself and it will never be a threat to the few that is in power.Mothy.

Exactly Mothy. Let the human mind address itself without the constricts or religious tyranny. To do so would indeed be a threat to that authority --- so called. Truth is a danger to society. To stand alone is a threat to the tyranny of a believed afterlife.

Quote:

We live in a world where the majority of people don't want wars but the minds are being fed with such absolute rubbish that they fall to their knees and thank the governments which are run by money madmen for making their lives safer.

We are all responsible for this mess. We can't blame the governments that we ourselves elect nor can we blame the religions that we ourselves join. Neither politicians nor popes make our lives safer. We must eschew authority, even our own. As Jiddu Krishnamurti said, "doubt everything". We will not accept political tyranny so why do we ( why do you?) acceot religious tyranny?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Or, are you implying that your level of knowlege is truly infinite? If so, I'd find that pretty ironic coming from one purporting to know only what their own senses tell them. That of course isn't necessarily "reality" either, as you could just be a battery powering the Matrix. See, you could be "the one" and not even know it.

However, sufficient absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence, although it still leaves a small possibility of missed evidence. There may actually be a Bigfoot species and living Eastern Cougar populations despite the absence of evidence of such existence, but probably not.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

However, sufficient absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence, although it still leaves a small possibility of missed evidence. There may actually be a Bigfoot species and living Eastern Cougar populations despite the absence of evidence of such existence, but probably not.

Nothing like a nice, anecdotal, and qualitative "probably" to refute sound logic, eh? How do you define sufficient and small? I can say nothing exists in a 1 quart mason jar containing a vacuum (barring radiation), but that's limited by my own sensory and technological detection capability. Remember when maggots used to clearly come from meat left out to rot? I'll go with there being a relatively small possibility of something else going on in the case of an empty mason jar. However, discounting the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of actual matter (dark matter too?) in the universe with regard to the existence of other sentient beings, "small possibility" just aren't the words that come to mind. What you and AF are actually saying is that some things beyond scientifically observational bounds mean little to nothing to you in a practical sense. I won't say "all things", because I know even the most hardcore don't operate strictly off peer-reviewed scientific findings.

Anyway, if one is to critique religion, the success/failure of it as a psychological and social support system would be the path to follow. Straying by saying something doesn't exist is as pointless as it is misleading and doesn't help the actual case. We're talking about knowing stuff, right? Know your audience.

However, sufficient absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence, although it still leaves a small possibility of missed evidence. There may actually be a Bigfoot species and living Eastern Cougar populations despite the absence of evidence of such existence, but probably not.

Nothing like a nice, anecdotal, and qualitative "probably" to refute sound logic, eh?

What? The fact there is a qualification to the sound logic makes to point less valid?

Quote:

How do you define sufficient and small?

It is a variable based on the amount of data acquired. The more data which is acquired without proof of existence the smaller the probability of said existence. The "sufficient" definition should begin at the data level from which a legal proof of what a reasonable person would believe should provide proof and increase from there.

Quote:

I can say nothing exists in a 1 quart mason jar containing a vacuum (barring radiation), but that's limited by my own sensory and technological detection capability.

Yes, which is why there is no proof of a negative passed the point of the evidence not supporting the claim of existence although the weight of the evidence can indicate the lack of existence at that point in time.

Quote:

Remember when maggots used to clearly come from meat left out to rot? I'll go with there being a relatively small possibility of something else going on in the case of an empty mason jar. However, discounting the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of actual matter (dark matter too?) in the universe with regard to the existence of other sentient beings, "small possibility" just aren't the words that come to mind.

They should given the relative nature of a vacuum which can be created. The best vacuum equipment can only remove most of the matter from the jar and even in space there is not a total vacuum. Thus, in practice there will not be a total vacuum in the jar and thus there will be some small amounts of matter in the jar. That matter may not be easily detected so the data would tend to indicate the lack of existence, but in reality there will be matter.

Quote:

What you and AF are actually saying is that some things beyond scientifically observational bounds mean little to nothing to you in a practical sense.

No, I am saying the absence of proof in sufficient quantity of data approaches the proof of absence in every level of definition. The generalization is fairly accurate on the surface, but when taken to specifics becomes less accurate.

Quote:

I won't say "all things", because I know even the most hardcore don't operate strictly off peer-reviewed scientific findings.

And no reputable peer-reviewed finding will usually be found with an absolute claim ... which is the point I used to yank your chain a little.

Quote:

Anyway, if one is to critique religion, the success/failure of it as a psychological and social support system would be the path to follow. Straying by saying something doesn't exist is as pointless as it is misleading and doesn't help the actual case. We're talking about knowing stuff, right? Know your audience.

Knowing and being able to prove to a neutral party are also two distinct and different points in most discussions too.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

What? The fact there is a qualification to the sound logic makes to point less valid?

No, qualitative "probability" detracts a little. It being totally anecdotal does most of the damage. ;-)

Quote:

It is a variable based on the amount of data acquired. The more data which is acquired without proof of existence the smaller the probability of said existence. The "sufficient" definition should begin at the data level from which a legal proof of what a reasonable person would believe should provide proof and increase from there.

Not knowing that oxygen exists, would you conclude that it doesn't based on samplings of a contained vacuum? I don't think you would, nor would I expect a reasonable person to conclude that sentience outside of humanity doesn't exist in the universe.

Quote:

Yes, which is why there is no proof of a negative passed the point of the evidence not supporting the claim of existence although the weight of the evidence can indicate the lack of existence at that point in time.

Agreed.

Quote:

They should given the relative nature of a vacuum which can be created. The best vacuum equipment can only remove most of the matter from the jar and even in space there is not a total vacuum. Thus, in practice there will not be a total vacuum in the jar and thus there will be some small amounts of matter in the jar. That matter may not be easily detected so the data would tend to indicate the lack of existence, but in reality there will be matter.

Right, detection limits and what not. Though, I'm talking more about that outside of our ability to currently detect, period.

Quote:

No, I am saying the absence of proof in sufficient quantity of data approaches the proof of absence in every level of definition. The generalization is fairly accurate on the surface, but when taken to specifics becomes less accurate.

Sure, it approaches it, but how close does it actually get? You might say it gets pretty close too. I'm saying it's far from it because you don't have a representative sample.

Quote:

And no reputable peer-reviewed finding will usually be found with an absolute claim ... which is the point I used to yank your chain a little.

There's already a long line for that. It's called "humor me" though

Quote:

Knowing and being able to prove to a neutral party are also two distinct and different points in most discussions too.

I've not so much a problem with belief in things other than demonstrated fact. Most of the audience, however, is less forgiving. Put them off up front and ability to prove drops off sharply regardless of the subject matter or strength of the proof. Makes one look like they're just airing their peeves rather than attempting to prove anything.

What? The fact there is a qualification to the sound logic makes to point less valid?

No, qualitative "probability" detracts a little. It being totally anecdotal does most of the damage. ;-)

As I was referencing your statement, what anecdotal aspect would there have been?

Quote:

Quote:

It is a variable based on the amount of data acquired. The more data which is acquired without proof of existence the smaller the probability of said existence. The "sufficient" definition should begin at the data level from which a legal proof of what a reasonable person would believe should provide proof and increase from there.

Not knowing that oxygen exists, would you conclude that it doesn't based on samplings of a contained vacuum?

No, but then again if one sampled multiple sources other than said vacuum and still did not find evidence of the existence the data would indicate oxygen does not exist in this location.

Quote:

I don't think you would, nor would I expect a reasonable person to conclude that sentience outside of humanity doesn't exist in the universe.

That would rely on the definition of "reasonable" to say the least. I would agree with you, but I am sure others will not and will consider themselves "reasonable" too.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, which is why there is no proof of a negative passed the point of the evidence not supporting the claim of existence although the weight of the evidence can indicate the lack of existence at that point in time.

Agreed.

Thus, the problem with holding "absence of evidence of existence is not evidence of absence of existence"

Quote:

Quote:

They should given the relative nature of a vacuum which can be created. The best vacuum equipment can only remove most of the matter from the jar and even in space there is not a total vacuum. Thus, in practice there will not be a total vacuum in the jar and thus there will be some small amounts of matter in the jar. That matter may not be easily detected so the data would tend to indicate the lack of existence, but in reality there will be matter.

Right, detection limits and what not. Though, I'm talking more about that outside of our ability to currently detect, period.

It is outside of our ability to create as well as outside of the natural vacuum of space. We can detect the particles of matter in our created vacuums and in space, but not in all cases.

Quote:

Quote:

No, I am saying the absence of proof in sufficient quantity of data approaches the proof of absence in every level of definition. The generalization is fairly accurate on the surface, but when taken to specifics becomes less accurate.

Sure, it approaches it, but how close does it actually get? You might say it gets pretty close too. I'm saying it's far from it because you don't have a representative sample.

How do we know what a representative sample will or should be for something we cannot find? We can only gather as much data as we can and make an assumption. You and I would probably be closer in agreement as to how close it is or may need to be, but others will not.

Quote:

Quote:

And no reputable peer-reviewed finding will usually be found with an absolute claim ... which is the point I used to yank your chain a little.

There's already a long line for that. It's called "humor me" though

I have a special pass to jump ahead in lines .....

Quote:

Quote:

Knowing and being able to prove to a neutral party are also two distinct and different points in most discussions too.

I've not so much a problem with belief in things other than demonstrated fact. Most of the audience, however, is less forgiving. Put them off up front and ability to prove drops off sharply regardless of the subject matter or strength of the proof. Makes one look like they're just airing their peeves rather than attempting to prove anything.

But that inability to prove to others is not tied to the "knowledge" factor is it ...

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

No, qualitative "probability" detracts a little. It being totally anecdotal does most of the damage. ;-)

As I was referencing your statement, what anecdotal aspect would there have been?

The part about there being left a small possibility of missed evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

Not knowing that oxygen exists, would you conclude that it doesn't based on samplings of a contained vacuum?

No, but then again if one sampled multiple sources other than said vacuum and still did not find evidence of the existence the data would indicate oxygen does not exist in this location.

No, the data would indicate that it wasn't detected. For practical purposes, one may or may not conclude that it doesn't exist.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't think you would, nor would I expect a reasonable person to conclude that sentience outside of humanity doesn't exist in the universe.

That would rely on the definition of "reasonable" to say the least. I would agree with you, but I am sure others will not and will consider themselves "reasonable" too.

What they consider themselves is beside the point. ;)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, which is why there is no proof of a negative passed the point of the evidence not supporting the claim of existence although the weight of the evidence can indicate the lack of existence at that point in time.

Agreed.

Thus, the problem with holding "absence of evidence of existence is not evidence of absence of existence"

My mistake. The rest of my response got cutoff. Change "existence" to "detection" and add "at the observed location" to "at that point in time" and I'm good.

Quote:

Quote:

Right, detection limits and what not. Though, I'm talking more about that outside of our ability to currently detect, period.

It is outside of our ability to create as well as outside of the natural vacuum of space. We can detect the particles of matter in our created vacuums and in space, but not in all cases.

Doesn't really matter what we can or can't create. What matters is how good we are at looking for something.

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, it approaches it, but how close does it actually get? You might say it gets pretty close too. I'm saying it's far from it because you don't have a representative sample.

How do we know what a representative sample will or should be for something we cannot find?

Look in ways we have not already, possibly even in places we haven't yet looked...same thing past discoverers did. No doubt, this is something as difficult to grasp now, maybe moreso, than it was back in the old days.

Quote:

We can only gather as much data as we can and make an assumption. You and I would probably be closer in agreement as to how close it is or may need to be, but others will not.

Right, I'm just not as confident in saying something, anything really, doesn't exist as I am saying that I am simply unable to scientifically establish that it's there.

Quote:

Quote:

There's already a long line for that. It's called "humor me" though

I have a special pass to jump ahead in lines .....

It all becomes clear now...

Quote:

Quote:

I've not so much a problem with belief in things other than demonstrated fact. Most of the audience, however, is less forgiving. Put them off up front and ability to prove drops off sharply regardless of the subject matter or strength of the proof. Makes one look like they're just airing their peeves rather than attempting to prove anything.

But that inability to prove to others is not tied to the "knowledge" factor is it ...

It's analogous to ammunition. It's of little use unless you have the tools to make effective use of it.

With instrument flying it is absolutely necessary to only believe what your eyes on a scan of gauges tells you. You ignore looking outside the windshield or windows, you ignore sounds, pretty much, and you ignore your bodily feelings. If gauges don't jive with each other, you determine which one or several are faulty. Partial panel with recovery from unusual attitudes is done, sometimes with just the compass and altimeter. A compass will swing north in acceleration and south in deceleration. It will quickly swing whatever the latitude is going east and west, in the direction of the turn, or turning from north, the opposite direction, then gradually come to reality in a slow turn. You never think a simple compass will fail you, but I was IFR at night and lost both my electrical turn and bank, and my compass stuck in place! The directional gyro precession on the old aircraft was of concern, and had to be adjusted to what I knew the wind to be and tracking true on a VOR radial

High FlightOh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earthAnd danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirthOf sun-split clouds - and done a hundred thingsYou have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swungHigh in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring thereI've chased the shouting wind along, and flungMy eager craft through footless halls of air.Up, up the long delirious, burning blue,I've topped the windswept heights with easy graceWhere never lark, or even eagle flew -And, while with silent lifting mind I've trodThe high untresspassed sanctity of space,Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

From a late 1970s poster;"If You Ain't a Pilot, You Ain't Shit"I would put; If you have not earned a CFI in helicopters, airplanes, and instruments--you are not shit.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

No, qualitative "probability" detracts a little. It being totally anecdotal does most of the damage. ;-)

As I was referencing your statement, what anecdotal aspect would there have been?

The part about there being left a small possibility of missed evidence.

But that is not anecdotal .... it is always a possibility.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Not knowing that oxygen exists, would you conclude that it doesn't based on samplings of a contained vacuum?

No, but then again if one sampled multiple sources other than said vacuum and still did not find evidence of the existence the data would indicate oxygen does not exist in this location.

No, the data would indicate that it wasn't detected. For practical purposes, one may or may not conclude that it doesn't exist.

Unless one is a woman, which may conclude "you do not love me anymore" or "if I buy kippers it will not rain".....

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I don't think you would, nor would I expect a reasonable person to conclude that sentience outside of humanity doesn't exist in the universe.

That would rely on the definition of "reasonable" to say the least. I would agree with you, but I am sure others will not and will consider themselves "reasonable" too.

What they consider themselves is beside the point. ;)

Not to them it isn't ...... again the perception of reality in the title.

Quote:

Quote:

Thus, the problem with holding "absence of evidence of existence is not evidence of absence of existence"

My mistake. The rest of my response got cutoff. Change "existence" to "detection" and add "at the observed location" to "at that point in time" and I'm good.

I don't know if I would call you "good" on that. Fair... maybe. Tolerable .... maybe. Late for supper .... always.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Right, detection limits and what not. Though, I'm talking more about that outside of our ability to currently detect, period.

It is outside of our ability to create as well as outside of the natural vacuum of space. We can detect the particles of matter in our created vacuums and in space, but not in all cases.

Doesn't really matter what we can or can't create. What matters is how good we are at looking for something.

If we cannot create it and it does not exist in nature, it does not matter how good we are a looking for it as we will not find what cannot be.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, it approaches it, but how close does it actually get? You might say it gets pretty close too. I'm saying it's far from it because you don't have a representative sample.

How do we know what a representative sample will or should be for something we cannot find?

Look in ways we have not already, possibly even in places we haven't yet looked...same thing past discoverers did. No doubt, this is something as difficult to grasp now, maybe moreso, than it was back in the old days.

That still would not create the definition of a representative sample as I cannot believe looking for a fish in the sand in the desert or on the moon could be cosidered a representative sample unless those were supposedly the most common areas in which to find a fish.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I've not so much a problem with belief in things other than demonstrated fact. Most of the audience, however, is less forgiving. Put them off up front and ability to prove drops off sharply regardless of the subject matter or strength of the proof. Makes one look like they're just airing their peeves rather than attempting to prove anything.

But that inability to prove to others is not tied to the "knowledge" factor is it ...

It's analogous to ammunition. It's of little use unless you have the tools to make effective use of it.

Unless you have the knowledge to make it useful with the tools you do have .....

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein